So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

dletter:So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

dletter:RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating the arguments I've actually heard about this shiat.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

What about all those that would be trained to use a gun but not actually own one?

dletter:So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training? This is an outrage! This is heresy! All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons. Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up. Or to never point them at anyone. Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. But these are small things.

new_york_monty:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

I am 100% for this idea.

Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Metcalf's take was quickly ripped on the magazine's Facebook page; with several readers saying on Wednesday they would abandon Guns & Ammo. "Off the topic but just want to know why your editor would support gun control?" one commenter wrote. "This is a gun magazine correct? I don't think we will be reading your magazine anymore."

See? They're reasonable people, just like everyone else. They're willing to listen politely to opposing opinions. And then blow the opposing opinion's head off.

There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block. There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

a. Smith and Wesson. Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products. Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes. So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo. Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it. Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c. The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show. This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year. Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's. People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up. Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out. The show had to be cancelled.

You don't fark with gun owners like that if your business caters to those very same gun owners. The Fudds are too few in number, and dying out, to carry you forward.

Although Car and Driver has been doing so for a while, while this is a novel first for G&A.

dletter:So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts. They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior. The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers. That is the most common way that criminals get armed. The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

But it isn't a quick fix, and with patchwork laws there are workarounds. See: armed gangs in DC and NYC.

RedPhoenix122:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

I don't know I've ever understood this argument. Where I live you are required to register your firearm with the town. It's not like they don't have a f*cking list anyway.

Of course even with a list, you can't assume someone you want to take down by force doesn't have an illegal firearm or one they got from a friend or cousin. Especially anyone who (presumably) broke the law and would be subject to some kind of forced entry into their house.

dletter:RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

Because they can't possibly go house to house just seizing guns, and general warrants are illegal and the kind of "shoot the bastards" type of warning sign. No legitimate entity under the US Constitution can just search a whole area under a general warrant. Ever.

But if you have a central list of all gun owners, and the types of guns they own, you now have "probable cause" to support a search warrant if a certain type or caliber of gun is banned. Plus, they don't have to expend the actual effort to go from house to house. They already know where they are.

So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing, and easier to do under existing US laws relating to search and seizures and the requirement for a particularized warrant supported by probable cause.

factoryconnection:I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts. They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior. The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers. That is the most common way that criminals get armed. The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

1. The "time to crime" for guns actually averages over 10 years, according to the ATF.

2. The real reason that there is massive opposition to that sort of control over guns is that it supplies the government with probable cause if they ever decide that any particular model, type, or caliber of gun should now be banned.

That's the real problem. A comprehensive registry of guns and gun owners is relatively benign in a democracy, right up until the time that there is some event that causes people to look to banning a certain type of gun. Then it becomes an effective method to collect all of them. That is what happened in the UK in the late 1990s: All guns had to be registered there, and handguns especially were subject to relatively strict controls. But after the mass shooting in Dunblane, they banned all modern handguns, and they had the means to effectively collect them all from the legal owners.

If there is no central registry, though, you can't effectively ban them. You can't collect them because you don't know who has them. You can talk to the original purchasers, but they may have subsequently sold them, or (my personal favorite), "it fell out of the canoe into the lake when we capsized it while I was fishing about 5 years ago".

Another thing that isn't really talked about is that the extra hassle and cost that goes with registration of guns often prevents people who *WOULD* legally own guns, but don't have the time or money to do so, or just don't want to put in the money and effort for something they aren't sure they are going to like. This limits the number of people who legally own guns, and in fact by gradually increasing the cost and requirements, you can make something go from a majority, or a very sizable minority, into a very small minority. That lowers the eventual political cost of a ban.

Marcus Aurelius:While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training? This is an outrage! This is heresy! All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons. Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up. Or to never point them at anyone. Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. But these are small things.

dittybopper:2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.

A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

dittybopper:Marcus Aurelius: While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training? This is an outrage! This is heresy! All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons. Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up. Or to never point them at anyone. Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. But these are small things.

What if that training costs $500 and is only available once a month during regular business hours? You know, so that brown people won't own guns.

I think I paid about $12 for my gun safety course back in 1972, but point taken.

MayoSlather:dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.

It used to be that the Fudds dominated gun ownership. Now, they don't:

Look at the Dem/Lean Dem numbers: The biggest reason among them (and most other populations) for owing a gun has flipped from Hunting to Protection.

The Fudds are dying out, and their attitude of "well, why do you need X rounds to hunt a deer" is dying with them.

I'm a hunter myself, and I actually only use a single-shot muzzleloader when I hunt*, but I'm not a Fudd, despite only owning "Fudd guns". I recognize that we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hand separately.

*And not a pussy modern inline gun either: I use a traditional style flintlock.

Marcus Aurelius:dittybopper: Marcus Aurelius: While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training? This is an outrage! This is heresy! All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons. Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up. Or to never point them at anyone. Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. But these are small things.

What if that training costs $500 and is only available once a month during regular business hours? You know, so that brown people won't own guns.

I think I paid about $12 for my gun safety course back in 1972, but point taken.

That's how they get stuff like that approved. Make it easy, so it's not much of a burden. Then, they can make it increasingly harder and more expensive. That's what they did in NYC, and in the UK.

simplicimus:A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.

dittybopper:Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.

Driving death rates have been falling consistently because of safety regulations over the years. Driving in the 60s was perilously dangerous and the cars themselves made it much more so. Cars nowadays are vastly safer and thus people survive even unhurt accidents that would have killed them. I wonder what drove the safety culture?

Of course, violent crime has dropped over the past 20 years and with it gun murders which is more and more thought to be tied to the rise and fall of environmental lead exposure to children from the 50s through the late 70s. Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.

dittybopper:simplicimus: A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.

And I should point out that about 2/3 of gun fatalities were suicides.

dittybopper:MayoSlather: dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors. Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.

Nope.

These people existed long before the TEA party was a gleam in conservative eyes, and they aren't strictly conservatives, either: There are plenty of liberals in there also. In fact, the "own guns because it's an individual right" crowd tends to be younger, browner, and more female compared to the elder-white-male dominated "own guns because plaid wool and deer hunting" Fudds.

It used to be that the Fudds dominated gun ownership. Now, they don't:

[www.people-press.org image 411x341]

Look at the Dem/Lean Dem numbers: The biggest reason among them (and most other populations) for owing a gun has flipped from Hunting to Protection.

The Fudds are dying out, and their attitude of "well, why do you need X rounds to hunt a deer" is dying with them.

I'm a hunter myself, and I actually only use a single-shot muzzleloader when I hunt*, but I'm not a Fudd, despite only owning "Fudd guns". I recognize that we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hand separately.

*And not a pussy modern inline gun either: I use a traditional style flintlock.

I wasn't addressing gun owners as a whole, just the sect of hardliners that don't want any regulation and regularly go on the offensive against anyone who is ostensibly not as pure of heart as they are.

dletter:So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Elegy:Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

dittybopper:So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing

And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.

You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns, while ignoring everything from the acceptance of guns on both sides of the aisle including among those who have no desire to own guns, the utter impracticality of a gun ban making the legislation impossible even if people tried to comply with it, the requirement of a farking constitutional amendment to allow such a thing to happen, and the groundswell of resistance that would occur between gun owners and the 'grabbers'.

Your boohoo about a boogeyman does more to undermine the pro-gun position than anything else on the farking planet. Grow up, take the night light out, and act like a farking adult.

dletter:RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

skozlaw:Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.

new_york_monty:dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

That would mean that their kids are going to government controlled brainwashing centers, aka public schools They bring their kids to god fearing private schools that take vouchers, and they can teach their kids how to shoot guns at brown folk all by themselves.

Please don't, just please, please don't. Every farking time, someone has to bring that up. Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on? We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

HotWingConspiracy:It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.

Oh, hell, they don't even need THAT excuse to do a 180. Remember a few months back when a state legislature did actually try to pass a law that stated that if you were diagnosed as potentially dangerous that you would be barred from passing a gun check and they immediately threw a fit that it was a violation of the person's privacy and cut it down?

It's almost like all their claims about what sort of violence reduction measures they'd actually support are just smokescreens and the only actual outcome they'll accept is "nothing because my personal hobbies are more important than anybody else's life no matter how minor the changes are or how major the potential benefits"...

Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!